Idea to further balance the Combat Triangle

[Peronix]

I would first like to point out that melee players can use ranged armour without any disadvantages, and they can also use ranged. This makes a range-melee pure very useful. BUT, they are weak to meleers, because a normal melee PKer or pure would have a much better defense, so the Range-Meleer couldn't use range so effectively, and his defenses would be sliced through. The same thing goes for range-mages. They wear mage armour and use a bow and arrow, and they can entangle or ice their opponent and range them to death, without any ranged disadvantages. But, they are weak to ranged PKers or pures, because their arrows would easy penetrate the range-mage's defenses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I see somthing imbalanced in the PKing triangle. That is, meleers aren't that weak to magic attacks, yet they can't use magic worth a darn. Honesty, if I can use my zammy cape with dragon vamps in melee armour and have a + magic defense when meleers are supposed to be very weak to magic, somthing needs to be changed. God forbid, I even easily defeated a saradomin mage like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, I propose that the magic attack negitive on melee armour be GREATLY reduced, mabye to -10 with full, and coupled with a staff and other magic enhancing items, can get to +40 or higher. But, I also propose that the negitive magic DEFENSE, be greatly INCREASED. That way if a mage was wearing melee armour therefore owning the melee class, they would get owned by other mages due to their horribly bad magic defense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is one common factor in all of theese melee-mage, melee-range, and range-mage classes, they can't use both of their methods as effecivly, it all depends on what type of armour they are wearing. Range meleers could use ranged as well if wearing melee armour, and they wouldn't survive as easily in ranged armour in a close up melee fight. Range mages if wearing ranged armour couldn't use magic as effectively, and wearing mage armour they wouldn't get any ranged bonuses from their armour. Mage meleers coulnd't use magic as effectively in melee armour, and they also would get beat up pretty badly if wearing mage armour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So do you guys agree that melee armor's magic attack/defense negitives should be reversed? I think it would better balance the triangle, so mages would have a better chance against those cheap melee dudes wearing ranged armour...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discuss :)

[what879]

but then theyd have uber def against range...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

perhaps the melee def bonuses on d hide should be reduced.

[Peronix]

but then theyd have uber def against range...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

perhaps the melee def bonuses on d hide should be reduced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I know they would. Meleers are supposed to die against mages, yet they wear d hides and own the mages. And, meleers are supposed to beat ranged, yet rangers in mage armour can entangle them and range them, and do a few spells, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree, you could lower the defenses on h hides, and furthermore, you could add negitive ranged effects to wearing mage armour. Either one needs to happen, that's for sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I like the idea of just leaving everything alone and modifiying melee armour, so you would have a better foundation for melee-mage pures, melee-range pures, and range-mage pures.

[frogmite]

rangers need a vast improvment they completely suck atm. ie double spec back and some harder hitting more consistant arrows.

[andydageeza123]

tbh i think that there is something wrong too with meleers and mage. example, i was at mage bank and i see a lvl 98 with whip + full rune. so i entangle him (i was 83 mage) and it did nothing. tried a few more times, nothing. That's when i got teamed and ran, but i checked his stats after and he had i think 75 defence :S what is up with that??

[urza1488]

Problem with 94 mage (ye lol) is that 94 mage is owned by 75 range ... but 94 mage also can be beaten by 75 75 75 in full hides. :? What's up with that? I would liike armors negative attack bonus going down. Then it'd be like rsc :lol::lol::lol: tank mages own yo!!!! (btw im 76 def 94 magic lol)

[Peronix]

tbh i think that there is something wrong too with meleers and mage. example, i was at mage bank and i see a lvl 98 with whip + full rune. so i entangle him (i was 83 mage) and it did nothing. tried a few more times, nothing. That's when i got teamed and ran, but i checked his stats after and he had i think 75 defence :S what is up with that??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like i said, that's because melee's magic defense isn't low enough. It needs to be lowered, SIGNIFICANTLY. I can wear god cape and drav vamps along with rune platebody, zam book, rune legs, warror helm, rune boots, and have a +8 magic defense.

[Peronix]

Problem with 94 mage (ye lol) is that 94 mage is owned by 75 range ... but 94 mage also can be beaten by 75 75 75 in full hides. :? What's up with that? I would liike armors negative attack bonus going down. Then it'd be like rsc :lol::lol::lol: tank mages own yo!!!! (btw im 76 def 94 magic lol)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not even close. Remember, I said attack/defense negitive bonueses for mage be REVERSED. That means you would get owned by another mage, since he has armour that defends against magic, and you have armour that is very weak to magic.

[urza1488]

 

Problem with 94 mage (ye lol) is that 94 mage is owned by 75 range ... but 94 mage also can be beaten by 75 75 75 in full hides. :? What's up with that? I would liike armors negative attack bonus going down. Then it'd be like rsc :lol::lol::lol: tank mages own yo!!!! (btw im 76 def 94 magic lol)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not even close. Remember, I said attack/defense negitive bonueses for mage be REVERSED. That means you would get owned by another mage, since he has armour that defends against magic, and you have armour that is very weak to magic.

 

 

 

That's ingenius! That would ......... make meleers weaker to mages..... and make mages better against meleers. Mage vs mage, just switch armors, and that takes up 4 sharks, but whatever. :D I really like this idea

[cerno]

This idea is really good. I agree that the negative on melee armor is not low enough. If you haven't gotten a chance yet, you should go post it on the main runescape forums.

[Themonkey78]

I still think that the only sensible solution would to make melee armor give a positive attack boost to melee and to make range and mystic/splitbark give a neg melee attack.

[jessy87]

I still think that the only sensible solution would to make melee armor give a positive attack boost to melee and to make range and mystic/splitbark give a neg melee attack.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

agreed

[urza1488]

I disagree.. black hides need the melee attack to be 0 for slayer... If you lower the melee def bonuses of hide, then sure. Also, note that splitbark stinks, both for melee and magic. :roll:

[Arthu]

Moving this to the discussions board.

[jessy87]

I disagree.. black hides need the melee attack to be 0 for slayer... If you lower the melee def bonuses of hide, then sure. Also, note that splitbark stinks, both for melee and magic. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

better if the problem of melee arrises...and great in castle wars id say because it keeps you from gettin killed so easily

[urza1488]

Moving this to the discussions board.

Your sig is inappropriate-edit it yourself :P :lol: